|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1981
DaneCounty-Planning
>
Zoning
>
BOA
>
BOA Minutes
>
1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2016 11:20:27 AM
Creation date
5/6/2016 11:16:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
February brua ry 26, 1`)81 <br /> Page 4 <br /> 4967. Motion by Voges, second by Purcell to allow withdrawal of appli- <br /> cation. <br /> Motion carried. • <br /> #968. Motion by Schwahn, second by Kruschke to grant a variance of 3 <br /> feet from the required setback from right-of-way of C.T.H. "BB" . <br /> FINDING OF FACTS: <br /> 1. Addition is farther back from right-of-way than the existing barn. <br /> 2. Addition location is determined by existing lay-out of barn and may <br /> not be located farther from the right-of-way because of the location <br /> of the barn cleaner. <br /> 3. The highway has an extra-wide right-of-way in this area and Dane <br /> County Highway Department has no objection to the variance. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> • <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible without <br /> injustice to applicant. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public <br /> interest. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> #969. Motion by Purcell, second by Kruschke to grant a variance from <br /> the maximum permitted time but not beyond September 1, 1981. <br /> FINDING OF FACT: <br /> 1. As stated by Attorney R. Glesner, compliance with the ordinance re- <br /> qu_ires only that Barrett Real Estate move to another residential <br /> building; they already have made plans to construct an office luildinc <br /> and move by fall. <br /> CONCLUSION: <br /> 1. The intent of the ordinance would not be furthered by requiring <br /> the move to another residential building. The use would need to <br /> be terminated in the residential district to achieve the full in- <br /> tent. <br /> 2. Extension of time to allow the termination of the use withol_t <br /> imposing undue hardship results in compliance without injustice <br /> to the applicant. <br /> CO_NCLU S I ON: <br /> a. Proven case of unnecessary hardship. <br /> b. Variance preserves the zoning ordinance as much as possible with- <br /> out injustice to applicant. <br /> c. Variance is not contrary to rights of others or to the public in- <br /> terest. <br /> d. Hardship is caused by the ordinance and is not self-imposed . <br /> Motion carried. <br /> Motion by Voges, second by Schwahn to adjourned. <br /> Motion carried. <br /> Meeting was adjourned at H: 30 p.m. <br /> COI R`, <br /> Phyllis Schwahn, E E y <br /> Secretary <br /> ilAR 2 1981 <br /> Minutes filed with Dane County Clerk 's Office Dane County CiE-J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.